“change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,292 judgments

The decision most relied on for change of opinion is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on change of opinion

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

366

citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

CIT v. Foramer France

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

253

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.

325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court

243

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing change of opinion

Sapna Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Siliguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1467/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

examining the unsecured loan and also the details furnished by the assessee. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that reopening is nothing but a change of opinion on the part of the AO which is not permissible in law. He relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India ... miserably failed to disclose any facts, material or otherwise which has not been disclosed. In our view, first of all the reasons indicated change of opinion which is impermissible in law and secondly, the entire basis for reopening is due to mistake of the Assessing Officer that resulted in under

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Spr and RG Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1485 & 1486/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Spr & Rg Constructions- Corporate Ward-6(1), Pvt. Ltd., 57, 1St Floor, Chennai. Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

wherein it is held the Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion failing to given a systematic interpretation. It was held that there is conceptual difference between power to review and power to frame reassessment

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Spr and RG Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Aarti Impex, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3999/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Section 143Section 250Section 69C

erred in dismissing the ground taken by the Appellant relating to the validity of the reassessment as the reassessment was only due to change of opinion and there was no failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment which

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

assessee specifically raised the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, contending that the notice of reopening was prompted by a mere change of opinion. The AO rejected plea of the assessee but the AAC accepted this ground and also held the reassessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional ... assessment and again made addition. On appeal, assessee re-agitated point of validity of re-assessment proceedings on ground that there was mere change of opinion. AAC found that no reasons were recorded by ITO before issuing notice for re-assessment and, therefore, held that ITO had no jurisdiction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Vetco Gray Pte Ltd, Singapore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2537/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Disha Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 44B

failed to call for relevant material, facts and made necessary investigations/enquiry during the course of assessment proceeding, there could not be any opinion.  Change of opinion applies on facts and not on legal position. The CIT is free to make additions by opting correct legal positions. Failure to gather information

Joyo Plastics, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-24 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical...

ITA 4405/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), ovision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise. the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise. the question of change of opinion, as contended

M/S. Vadera Enterprises, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-5, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 101/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

hereby quote CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC) to hold that such a reopening is merely a ‘change of opinion’ which is not sustainable in law. Ordered accordingly. The assessee succeeds in the instant issue of impugned reopening of assessment thereby rendering

Income Tax Office -34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prime Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

March 2014 u/s 143(3) of the Act considering the said claim. Therefore, said reason recorded in writing is merely on account of change of opinion and re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act is not permissible merely on account of change of opinion. Revenue’s Grounds of Appeal:- “Whether ... examined by the AO at the time of regular assessment hence reopening of said issue is mere change of opinion. In this context, it is important to note that Section 147 requires the assessee to declare the material not merely fully but also "truly". The appellant failed to file before

M/S Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4152/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

M/S. Kankaria Maninagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2350/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kankaria Maninagar Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nagarik Sahakari Bank Income Tax Vs. Circle – 6(1), Ahmedabad Ltd. Bhagwan Chamber, Maninagar Char Rasta, Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaak6862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Rahul Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. While One Appeal Is Against Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), The Other One Is Against The Rectification Order U/S. 154 Of The Act. These Appeals Were Heard Together And

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

well as in facts in passing impugned order upholding the re-assessment order made u/s 143 read with section 147 involving change of opinion. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad failed to observe that re-assessment proceeding was ultra-virer and illegal.” 3. The assessee is engaged ... Regulations Act and CBDT Circular No.599 of 24.04.1991. The Ld. AR also submitted that the reopening of the case was based on mere change of opinion. ITA Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 (Kankaria Maninagar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2012-13 - 5 – 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted

M/S. Kankaria Maninagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

Venugopal Nimmagadda, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 212/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Venugopal Nimmagadda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-10-29, Flat No.101 Ward-3(3) Anu Heights, 2Nd Lane Vijayawada Srinagar Colony Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Adapn2791A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.Madhusudhan, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

diversion of funds to non business purposes. The Ld.AR further submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld.AO tantamount to change of opinion, which was mechanically upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). He, therefore, submitted that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are not warranted and liable

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune vs. Gopal Janardan Tambe, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

rectification to the 2 assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on the debatable issue or where there is change of opinion. 3. On the facts and circumstances the CIT(A) did not properly evaluate the nature of the transaction and the genuineness of the claim of exemption ... income. Invocation of provisions of Sec. 154 does not give jurisdiction to the assessing officer to amend the assessment order merely on the change of opinion. On this ground also order passed u/s 154 is not sustainable in the eyes of law & the same be cancelled. 7. This case

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Behror vs. ITO Behror, Behror

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mathur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

That the assessment proceedings of the assessee was also earlier completed u/s 147/143 of the Act for the same and there is no change of opinion or fact in the case. 5. That the action of the AO in treating the cash deposit in his saving bank account amounting

Maheshwari Megaventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

existing material, the Hon’ble Court found that such an action of reopening by the learned Assessing Officer per se, founded on mere change of opinion and the same cannot satisfy the legislative intent that the learned Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income chargeable

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening proceedings are bad in law, illegal and untenable and deserves to be quashed on account of lack of reason to believe and change of opinion at the end of ld. Assessing Officer because alleged transaction has already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the course of regular

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148